Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your conclusions are your own. And they are so flawed that no sensible person actually agrees with you. College graduates after all are not a commodity. Each one is an individual. Figure out what that means, then rework your market-based arguments and get back to us.
And in my view, you and these alleged others have merely made fools of yourselves. With knowledge growing at such rates as it has since WWII, a K-12 education is simply not any longer enough to bring a person to minimum levels of social and personal competence. To be merely functional in the modern world, at least most people will need to go further in some degree. The importance of that only increases if your ambitions are to be successful in the modern world rather than merely functional. You can try to block all that out if you like, but it won't be going away.
You know, you sure enjoy your bluster as opposed to making any coherent argument. The Law of Supply and Demand applies to people, too. Put 100,000 new lawyers or engineers or programmers out in the marketplace in the course of a year and there's a glut that depresses overall wages. Perhaps you are the one who needs to learn economics.
Reverse engineering your screen name, I'm pretty sure you're the one enmeshed in the partisan world, parroting the talking points of whatever group you represent in DC. Hey, what do I know? I've only been in the strategic end of the business for twenty-five years now.
Not enough to have made you any sort of competent historian of the era in question. To clear away some hot air and set the record straight, there was never any public effort to require that lenders extend credit to any borrower not fully qualified for it. CRA -- which you seem from your post above not to understand -- only affirmed a long-standing but not often enforced obligation of depositary institutions that took FDIC or other such federal insurance to seek to meet the credit needs as well as the depositary needs of the communities they did business in. And speaking of CRA, those portfolios built up in previously under-served credit markets performed better than industry averages through the mid-90s, coming to have an Oklahoma Land Rush effect on what had been a staid market. Everyone suddenly wanted in, but sadly, not all of those who came a-rushing to the scene had any sense of ethics at all. Oh, and by the way, securitization in its modern form has been going on since the days of Nixon. I don't know how you could have missed it.
Your conclusions are your own. And they are so flawed that no sensible person actually agrees with you. College graduates after all are not a commodity. Each one is an individual. Figure out what that means, then rework your market-based arguments and get back to us.
did you bother to read the forbes link. why do the pro college like to ignore stuff they disagree with?
"by Christopher Matgouranis and Jonathan Robe
Walk into any introductory economics class across the country and it won’t take you long to hear about the law of diminishing marginal returns. According to this law, the production of any good or service reaches a point where each additional (or marginal) unit of the product confers an increasingly smaller benefit. At CCAP, we have released a study presenting empirical evidence pointing to the conclusion that diminishing returns have set in for the increased production of college graduates. We have used data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, its publication The Occupational Outlook Quarterly, and the Current Population Survey, to show that, over time and with increasing frequency, a substantial number college graduates are underemployed (that is, they are employed in occupations which the BLS classifies as below-college level jobs). This sizable and growing underemployment problem indicates that, at the margin, students who obtain college degrees wind up in jobs which they could have held coming straight out of high school.
"
Quote:
And in my view, you and these alleged others have merely made fools of yourselves. With knowledge growing at such rates as it has since WWII, a K-12 education is simply not any longer enough to bring a person to minimum levels of social and personal competence. To be merely functional in the modern world, at least most people will need to go further in some degree. The importance of that only increases if your ambitions are to be successful in the modern world rather than merely functional. You can try to block all that out if you like, but it won't be going aw
what works 20-30 years ago no longer works today the labour market is flooded with degrees. repeating the same pro-college line does not make it true. you left out people in trades, vocational and technical fields that are doing just as well as those with college degrees
"Bosses, of course, have long complained that newly minted college grads are not ready for the world of work, but there is a growing body of evidence that what students learn — or more likely don’t learn — in college makes them ill-prepared for the global job market. Two studies in just the past few weeks show that the clear signal a college degree once sent to employers that someone is ready for a job increasingly has a lot of noise surrounding it.
One study is the result of a test administered to 32,000 students at 169 colleges and universities. It found that 40 percent of college seniors fail to graduate with the complex reasoning skills needed in today’s workplace. The test, the Collegiate Learning Assessment Plus, is given to freshmen and seniors and measures the gains made during college in critical thinking, writing and communication, and analytical reasoning."
Not enough to have made you any sort of competent historian of the era in question. To clear away some hot air and set the record straight, there was never any public effort to require that lenders extend credit to any borrower not fully qualified for it. CRA -- which you seem from your post above not to understand -- only affirmed a long-standing but not often enforced obligation of depositary institutions that took FDIC or other such federal insurance to seek to meet the credit needs as well as the depositary needs of the communities they did business in. And speaking of CRA, those portfolios built up in previously under-served credit markets performed better than industry averages through the mid-90s, coming to have an Oklahoma Land Rush effect on what had been a staid market. Everyone suddenly wanted in, but sadly, not all of those who came a-rushing to the scene had any sense of ethics at all. Oh, and by the way, securitization in its modern form has been going on since the days of Nixon. I don't know how you could have missed it.
Lots of half-truths and poorly-digested information there, despite your rush to Wikipedia.
In 1995, the Clinton administration made sweeping changes to the CRA regulations. Those changes essentially gutted time-honored underwriting under the guise of cutting out tedious paperwork. And that Oklahoma Land Rush effect to which you allude was the result of lots of people getting mortgages who were higher-risk borrowers, which was exactly my point. As a result, people were no longer haggling over the price of a house, then going to the bank for a mortgage with their 20% stake. Instead, people were walking in without a dime in equity, more concerned with their monthly mortgage payment rather than their total loan. They weren't underserved. They were bad credit risks.
As a result, all the stunt mortgages such as zero-down, ARMs, you name it, were being actively encouraged by Fannie Mac and Fannie Mae because that was the only way they were ever going to meet their rising quotas for non-conforming loans, quotas set by administration policy without the slightest nod to actual market conditions. A lot of marginal borrowers were being told by FMAE and FMAC to, sure, get an ARM because interest rates were going to be favorable forever. And if you don't think pressure was applied to lenders, then that's mighty potent crack that you've been smoking.
So yeah, the 'staid' mortgage market was indeed stimulated. But mortgages aren't supposed to be anything but staid. They are supposed to be nice, reliable, and boring. The fact that you suppose otherwise just tells me that your understanding of banking is somewhere close to zero. I mean, hey, if I max out my credit cards, I can live pretty well, too, for a while. But sometime or another, the piper has to be paid.
On to the next gross misunderstanding on your part. Sure, securitization had been around for a long time. But only beginning in 1998 did it begin to apply to the glut of subprime and non-conforming mortgages the resulted in the changes to CRA regulations, actively encouraged by Fannie Mac through Bear Stearns. You know, the Oklahoma Land Rush. Well, that's what set the entire catastrophe in motion, until it all fell apart in 2008.
In other words, with every post you prove even further that you don't understand banking, the mortgage market, the policy decisions of the past 25 years, or simple economics. Instead, you seem to be solely informed by whatever screeds that agree with your predetermined political leanings. Here's a novel idea. Instead of just repeating your favorite politicians, try reading and thinking independently. You might be suprised at what you learn.
Last edited by MinivanDriver; 11-01-2017 at 09:52 AM..
It wasn't of any help to your cause. Nothing is. Your claims are simply not credible, and running off to hide in the weeds of copy-and-paste will not change the fact. Taking and barely passing Econ 101 is not a marker of anything good. College graduates are not a commodity and can't rationally be discussed as such.
It wasn't of any help to your cause. Nothing is. Your claims are simply not credible, and running off to hide in the weeds of copy-and-paste will not change the fact. Taking and barely passing Econ 101 is not a marker of anything good. College graduates are not a commodity and can't rationally be discussed as such.
typical college elitist dismissing anything he does not like
the law of supply and demand also apply to people looking for jobs Minivandriver said this when replying to one of your posts.
Lots of half-truths and poorly-digested information there, despite your rush to Wikipedia.
Actually, I'm running circles around you and the hack history you have tried to pass off here. You're no actual expert at any of this. Merely mentioning Henry Cisneros flagged that fact on you. Do you think you could do Roberta Achtenberg next?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
In 1995, the Clinton administration made sweeping changes to the CRA regulations.
Yes, in concert with covered lenders, they simplified the process for demonstrating credible efforts to identify qualified borrowers in the areas they took deposits from. About half of those new borrowers were qualifying at prime, by the way. Covered by CRA or not, it's easy to make money lending to a basket of prime and Alt-A borrowers, and that's what drew the crooks like moths to a flame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
On to the next gross misunderstanding on your part. Sure, securitization had been around for a long time.
So you retract your earlier and quite silly claims and now admit that securitization is and long has been a garden-variety means by which primary market lenders recapitalize in order to be able to lend again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
But only beginning in 1998 did it begin to apply to subprime and non-conforming, actively encouraged by Fannie Mac through Bear Stearns.
Fannie Mac, huh? That's telling. And pointing to the Bear Stearns deal at all is straight out of the same hack literature that Cisneros came from.
So many anti-college folks are only trying to mask their own regrets in life. Sensible people build a solid foundation for what is to come later on.
I think that the anti-college sentiment isn't so much a regret in life, as it is a fear. They never wanted to attend college in the first place, and find intellectualism to be something alien, effete, and even effeminate and unmanly. As I've said earlier in the thread, I don't believe they should attend college as it isn't for everyone, as they may be out of their element and would be wasting the instructor's time and talents. The vocational trades are something we should "push" more. At the end of the day, the financial rewards of a tradesman will often far surpass those of an academic.
Actually, I'm running circles around you and the hack history you have tried to pass off here. You're no actual expert at any of this. Merely mentioning Henry Cisneros flagged that fact on you. Do you think you could do Roberta Achtenberg next?
Yes, in concert with covered lenders, they simplified the process for demonstrating credible efforts to identify qualified borrowers in the areas they took deposits from. About half of those new borrowers were qualifying at prime, by the way. Covered by CRA or not, it's easy to make money lending to a basket of prime and Alt-A borrowers, and that's what drew the crooks like moths to a flame.
So you retract your earlier and quite silly claims and now admit that securitization is and long has been a garden-variety means by which primary market lenders recapitalize in order to be able to lend again?
Fannie Mac, huh? That's telling. And pointing to the Bear Stearns deal at all is straight out of the same hack literature that Cisneros came from.
This is getting funny, what with your revisionist history. Henry Cisneros was at the heart of the regulatory changes. Come back when you actually know about banking, Scooter, rather than play keyboard warrior.
I think that the anti-college sentiment isn't so much a regret in life, as it is a fear. They never wanted to attend college in the first place, and find intellectualism to be something alien, effete, and even effeminate and unmanly.
why do the pro-college constantly repeating the anti-intellectual line as if it is true?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
